Yoko Ono in L.A.
Francie
By BOOTH MOORE
The artwork of former Beatle John Lennon--the anti-Establishment
prophet who continues to
intrigue and inspire his fans even as he has become a
commodity--will be exhibited this week at the
Fashion Square shopping mall in Sherman Oaks.
First, I thought it was tacky to put his work in a shopping mall,
but on second thought, malls
are what pass for cultural gathering places around here. (And, after
all, some of the images have
been licensed for use on a line of Carter's children's clothing.)
The highlight of the show, which begins Thursday, is 12 drawings
that Lennon created with his
son, Sean Lennon, between 1977 and 1980, which were assembled into
the book "Real Love" last
year.
I spoke with Yoko Ono the other day about the charming drawings,
which are in L.A. for the
first time. The fanciful images of elephants and giraffes were a way
for John to teach Sean the
alphabet and the names of animals, she said. And, for her, they
bring up a lot of conflicting
emotions.
"He had this way of making Sean laugh by saying, 'This is a kitty
cat,' " Ono said. "It makes me
remember the fun we had, but it was a bittersweet time."
Sean, now 24, is following in his father's footsteps as a musician
and an artist. "He's been trying
to find his own way of expressing himself," Ono said. "It's not easy
when John is so famous and
his mother did a few things too."
Asked if she thought John would have objected to having the intimate
drawings exhibited in a
shopping mall, or to having Lennon's designs on footsie PJs, Yoko
replied, "He would have loved
it."
She said she was extremely upset by the recent incident in London
when George Harrison was
stabbed in the chest by an intruder in his home. "It was terrible
and it affected us all so much. I got
the news in the middle of the night and I couldn't stop shaking. I
kept praying he was going to be
OK. I didn't want another tragedy."
* * *
All right.....
francie
--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Whatever is worthwhile about us
As individuals, groups or societies
Is the inefficient part. Inefficiency
Is where human life exists, social
Life exists, where love, hatred
And culture exist.
Nyarlathotep
fab...@best1.net wrote:
> "He had this way of making Sean laugh by saying, 'This is a kitty
> cat,' " Ono said. "It makes me
>
> remember the fun we had, but it was a bittersweet time."
Hmm, was this a slip on Ono's part (i.e., insofar as she admits that
this period, during which they were raising Sean, was less than
idyllic)?
> Sean, now 24, is following in his father's footsteps as a musician
> and an artist. "He's been trying
>
> to find his own way of expressing himself," Ono said. "It's not easy
> when John is so famous and
>
> his mother did a few things too."
She sure did "do a few things" -- awful things.
> Asked if she thought John would have objected to having the intimate
> drawings exhibited in a
>
> shopping mall, or to having Lennon's designs on footsie PJs, Yoko
> replied, "He would have loved
>
> it."
If he "would have loved" it so much, why didn't he _do_ it?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Francie
> In article <388482BB...@best1.net>,
> fab...@best1.net wrote:
>
> > "He had this way of making Sean laugh by saying, 'This is a kitty
> > cat,' " Ono said. "It makes me
> >
> > remember the fun we had, but it was a bittersweet time."
>
> Hmm, was this a slip on Ono's part (i.e., insofar as she admits that
> this period, during which they were raising Sean, was less than
> idyllic)?
No. After 11 years of marriage, the bitter comes with the sweet. It was not
a Hallmark greeting card marriage. Ever.
>
>
> > Sean, now 24, is following in his father's footsteps as a musician
> > and an artist. "He's been trying
> >
> > to find his own way of expressing himself," Ono said. "It's not easy
> > when John is so famous and
> >
> > his mother did a few things too."
>
> She sure did "do a few things" -- awful things.
Like what, smartass? Do you even know any of the lyrics she wrote?
>
>
> > Asked if she thought John would have objected to having the intimate
> > drawings exhibited in a
> >
> > shopping mall, or to having Lennon's designs on footsie PJs, Yoko
> > replied, "He would have loved
> >
> > it."
>
> If he "would have loved" it so much, why didn't he _do_ it?
Because he was still drawing and writing and performing. He never had to
consider how to spread his art. But she is right he would have larfed and
enjoyed every bit of it.
Strabbo
using what the masses will listen to in order to get his message out.
For his art to be in a shopping mall where the masses will see it
rather than in an art gallery where, let's face it, the majority of
people won't go to view it, makes sense to me.
I don't presume to know what John would have wanted, I just never saw
him as an elitist.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Francie
> In article <0221c012...@usw-ex0101-004.remarq.com>,
> Strabbo <martins...@compusmart.com.invalid> wrote:
> > As I recall, his bed-in was a 'commercial for peace', basically just
> > using what the masses will listen to in order to get his message out.
> > For his art to be in a shopping mall where the masses will see it
> > rather than in an art gallery where, let's face it, the majority of
> > people won't go to view it, makes sense to me.
> >
> > I don't presume to know what John would have wanted, I just never saw
> > him as an elitist.
>
> Well, you can be non-elitist without being a commercial hack, which
> is one Ono is working overtime to turn his memory into.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Bull. John was always highly interested in reaching people, no matter how
"unimportant" they were. He would have larfed himself silly to hear these
whining complaints about Yoko putting his drawings for Sean on kiddie
pajamas. And you'd be surprised how many soccer moms who loved John are
putting their kids in these quality garments. Yoko, who knew and loved
John better than any other person on the planet, was right when she said
he would have loved having his art in "the people's gallery" - the Mall,
which is where America goes for visual stimulation - unless they're
elitist types who go out of their way to spend time in museums and such.
Tom
> Of course I do (sample: "Kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss me love, just one
>kiss kiss will do"; another sample: "mote, mote, mote, mote, MOTE!!!").
> Her lyrics are perhaps worthy of a mentally deficient 3-year old.
Stop giving me straight lines.
Nyarlathotep
fab...@best1.net wrote:
> Nyarlathotep wrote:
> > Hmm, was this a slip on Ono's part (i.e., insofar as she admits
that
> > this period, during which they were raising Sean, was less than
> > idyllic)?
>
> No. After 11 years of marriage, the bitter comes with the sweet. It
was not
> a Hallmark greeting card marriage. Ever.
I'll say. Hallmark has yet to put out a card commemorating a
marriage in which the wife sends her husband off to Bermuda so that she
can cavort with her coterie of gay art dealers (etc.). Hallmark has to
put out a card honoring a woman so totally deluded that she thinks her
every act -- including heroin use -- constitutes art. Hallmark has yet
to put out a card honoring a woman so utterly obsessed with the public's
perception of her that she hires a loathesome sycophant to churn out
preposterous lies about her.
No -- their marriage was not a Hallmark one. It wasn't even an
healthy one.
> > > Sean, now 24, is following in his father's footsteps as a musician
> > > and an artist. "He's been trying
> > >
> > > to find his own way of expressing himself," Ono said. "It's not
easy
> > > when John is so famous and
> > >
> > > his mother did a few things too."
> >
> > She sure did "do a few things" -- awful things.
>
> Like what, smartass? Do you even know any of the lyrics she wrote?
Of course I do (sample: "Kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss me love, just one
kiss kiss will do"; another sample: "mote, mote, mote, mote, MOTE!!!").
Her lyrics are perhaps worthy of a mentally deficient 3-year old.
> > > Asked if she thought John would have objected to having the
intimate
> > > drawings exhibited in a
> > >
> > > shopping mall, or to having Lennon's designs on footsie PJs, Yoko
> > > replied, "He would have loved
> > >
> > > it."
> >
> > If he "would have loved" it so much, why didn't he _do_ it?
>
> Because he was still drawing and writing and performing.
Be serious. If John wanted his every production to be turned into
merchandise, he'd have done so. But money-grubbing isn't what he was
Nyarlathotep
Strabbo <martins...@compusmart.com.invalid> wrote:
> As I recall, his bed-in was a 'commercial for peace', basically just
> using what the masses will listen to in order to get his message out.
> For his art to be in a shopping mall where the masses will see it
> rather than in an art gallery where, let's face it, the majority of
> people won't go to view it, makes sense to me.
>
> I don't presume to know what John would have wanted, I just never saw
> him as an elitist.
Well, you can be non-elitist without being a commercial hack, which
is one Ono is working overtime to turn his memory into.
Mister Charlie
> > fab...@best1.net wrote:
> >
> > > "He had this way of making Sean laugh by saying, 'This is a kitty
> > > cat,' " Ono said. "It makes me
> > >
> > > remember the fun we had, but it was a bittersweet time."
> >
that
> > this period, during which they were raising Sean, was less than
> > idyllic)?
>
> No. After 11 years of marriage, the bitter comes with the sweet. It
was not
> a Hallmark greeting card marriage. Ever.
>
> >
> >
> > > and an artist. "He's been trying
> > >
> > > to find his own way of expressing himself," Ono said. "It's not
easy
> > > when John is so famous and
> > >
> > > his mother did a few things too."
> >
> > She sure did "do a few things" -- awful things.
>
> Like what, smartass? Do you even know any of the lyrics she wrote?
>
> >
> >
intimate
> > > drawings exhibited in a
> > >
> > > shopping mall, or to having Lennon's designs on footsie PJs, Yoko
> > > replied, "He would have loved
> > >
> > > it."
> >
> > If he "would have loved" it so much, why didn't he _do_ it?
>
to
> consider how to spread his art. But she is right he would have larfed
and
> enjoyed every bit of it.
>
> francie
>
putting the bluenoses face right into it (and making them pay $
too)..2.) he had a career of exhibitionism. He was not ashamed. He
loved Yoko and spent decades sharing that with the world. This was
just one aspect.
Yeah, he'd laugh, and I think he'd be touched by those who truly found
the beauty and truth in those drawings.
--
--------------------------------------------
"...I've had a litho or two and I don't care..."
Mister Charlie
fab...@best1.net wrote:
how
> "unimportant" they were. He would have larfed himself silly to hear
these
> whining complaints about Yoko putting his drawings for Sean on kiddie
> pajamas. And you'd be surprised how many soccer moms who loved John
are
> putting their kids in these quality garments. Yoko, who knew and loved
> John better than any other person on the planet, was right when she
said
> he would have loved having his art in "the people's gallery" - the
Mall,
> which is where America goes for visual stimulation - unless they're
> elitist types who go out of their way to spend time in museums and
such.
>
> francie
>
Yes, he would be delighted, as an artist and a former Beatle, to have
his artwork be accepted on it's own merit. He would be popular for a
whole new reason. He was an artist of many outlets. It would have
been quite satisfying to him, I'm sure, to see people buy and enjoy
merchandise decorated with something so close and important to him.
And why are we not pillorying Mountain Girl and Mrs. Garcia for
allowing all the merchandise that's out (ties, shirts, credit cards,
etc...) featuring paintings done by the late Jerry Garcia? Are they
also money-grubbing? Would Jerry have minded?
Just because you have a personal dislike, bewilderment, and non-
understanding of Yoko, and an apparent hatred of Elliot Mintz, you have
not proven in any way that this activity is harmful to anyone on the
planet, nor can you prove John would not have approved of this commerce.
--------------------------------------------
"...I've had a pair of jammies
with John's face on them
eating out his wife
Mick Collins
>putting the bluenoses face right into it (and making them pay $
>too)..
anything like blue-stockings? :)
The children's book (Drawing for Sean) was one of the sweetest books we had on
the shelf when I worked back in the kid's department of B+N. Some days, a
little capitalism isn't really a bad thing.
Cyn
"Daleks don't like stairs."
Nyarlathotep
Mister Charlie <cc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Just because you have a personal dislike, bewilderment, and non-
> understanding of Yoko, and an apparent hatred of Elliot Mintz, you
have
> not proven in any way that this activity is harmful to anyone on the
> planet, nor can you prove John would not have approved of this
commerce.
Alright, I'll give you a chance to support some of this. What is
it about Yoko that you allege I do not understand? Be specific, now --
and remember, the repetition of vacuous platitudes won't suffice.
In truth it's _you_ who fails to understand Ono; you're falling
for the lies (e.g., that every single damned thing she does is somehow
sanctioned by John; that every single damned thing she does is art;
etc.).
You say that I cannot prove that John wouldn't approve of Ono's
commercialization of his legacy. This is correct -- however, you cannot
prove that John would have "loved" such commercialzation. Proof, in
such cases, is impossible; the best we can do is offer arguments as to
what is probable or likely.
I say that John wasn't a commercial hack, and that, if he wanted
his drawings to Sean to be commercialized, he'd have done it himself. I
say that he just wasn't a money-grubber. (Take a look at the sanguine
attitude JL had when his finances were in bad shape -- John Green
documents this: "Money's not important. It never was.")
Strabbo
<nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Alright, I'll give you a chance to support some of this.
> What is
> it about Yoko that you allege I do not understand? Be specific,
> now --
> and remember, the repetition of vacuous platitudes won't suffice.
Have you ever _met_ Yoko? Have any of us? (exc. Francie) How can you
say you understand her based on what you've seen and heard her do?
> In truth it's _you_ who fails to understand Ono; you're
> falling
> for the lies (e.g., that every single damned thing she does is
> somehow
> sanctioned by John;
I doubt even she would say that everything she does is sanctioned by
John.
> that every single damned thing she does is art;
> etc.).
I won't speak regarding her art. This has nothing to do with her art.
This is about John's art and Sean's art. The little kids wearing those
pajamas have probably never even heard of John Lennon. You think John
would object to his art reaching a new generation of audience? Few kids
today will sit and get excited over the Beatles music, or even John's
music. But if they like the artwork on their pajamas, so what? So his
legacy is passed in a new way.
> You say that I cannot prove that John wouldn't approve of
> Ono's
> commercialization of his legacy. This is correct -- however, you
> cannot
> prove that John would have "loved" such commercialzation. Proof,
> in
> such cases, is impossible; the best we can do is offer arguments
> as to
> what is probable or likely.
> I say that John wasn't a commercial hack, and that, if he
> wanted
> his drawings to Sean to be commercialized, he'd have done it
> himself. I
True, we can't say for sure what John would have wanted. But think
about this: we have our opinions based on what we saw of John, what we
read about him and the image his legend has left in our minds. Yoko,
rumor has it, actually LIVED with the man! They spent actual YEARS
living together, sharing hopes dreams, thoughts, and getting to know
each other as only a couple in love could. When I pass on to the soda
shop in the sky, I would trust no one but my wife who knows and loves
me completely with the writings I leave behind.
Jamie
> > that every single damned thing she does is art;
> > etc.).
>
> I won't speak regarding her art. This has nothing to do with her art.
> This is about John's art and Sean's art. The little kids wearing those
> pajamas have probably never even heard of John Lennon. You think John
> would object to his art reaching a new generation of audience? Few kids
> today will sit and get excited over the Beatles music, or even John's
> music. But if they like the artwork on their pajamas, so what? So his
> legacy is passed in a new way.
Who told you that kids don't like Beatles music? A lot of children love the
Beatles. Why not let them learn about John Lennon that way, *through the music*?
What, exactly, would be the benefit of kids learning John's "legacy" through
doodles that were put on kiddie pajamas? Most everyone agrees that John was a
genius in music, not artwork, pleasant though some of it may be. Do you remember
the patterns on the pajamas from when you were a toddler? Are a lot of kids
passing on the "legacy" of Elmo, or learning to love the music stylings of Big
Bird? What would be the advantages of kids growing up knowing John Lennon as a
"pajama designer"?
Some of John's artwork is fine. But it's not great, and he wasn't a genius at
it. And I'm talking about his *finished* sketches. Some of what Yoko is putting
out was no doubt thought of by John as insignificant doodles, done as practice,
to entertain Sean, to pass the time, etc. I doubt he was imagining them as part
of a future book deal or to adorn clothes. If he was, I bet he would've worked
much harder at them.
~Jamie
Tom
> Um, think about what you're asking. Consider the implications of a
>principle like, "You're only allowed to make judgements about people you
>have met." First of all, the principle is silly; no one in fact abides
>by it, and there are no good reasons for thinking that anyone should.
>Moreover, if making judgements about a person were contingent on having
>_met_ that person, then where would that leave you Ono fans? You, too,
>would be unable to render judgements about Ono!
>
Hey, I talked to her for a whole 7 seconds. That makes me an insider.
Tom
>Some of John's artwork is fine. But it's not great, and he wasn't a genius
at
>it. And I'm talking about his *finished* sketches. Some of what Yoko is
putting
>out was no doubt thought of by John as insignificant doodles, done as
practice,
>to entertain Sean, to pass the time, etc. I doubt he was imagining them as
part
>of a future book deal or to adorn clothes. If he was, I bet he would've
worked
>much harder at them.
I take it your music collection doesn't include either anthology or any
bootlegs?
Before he died, Kafka requested that all his unpublished works be destroyed.
If that request had been carried out, we wouldn't have his best known story.
Nyarlathotep
Strabbo <martins...@compusmart.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <865715$m37$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Nyarlathotep
> <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Alright, I'll give you a chance to support some of this.
> > What is
> > it about Yoko that you allege I do not understand? Be specific,
> > now --
> > and remember, the repetition of vacuous platitudes won't suffice.
>
> Have you ever _met_ Yoko? Have any of us? (exc. Francie) How can you
> say you understand her based on what you've seen and heard her do?
Um, think about what you're asking. Consider the implications of a
principle like, "You're only allowed to make judgements about people you
have met." First of all, the principle is silly; no one in fact abides
by it, and there are no good reasons for thinking that anyone should.
Moreover, if making judgements about a person were contingent on having
_met_ that person, then where would that leave you Ono fans? You, too,
would be unable to render judgements about Ono!
The fact is that we all make judgements about others ALL THE TIME;
that's just the way reality works.
> > In truth it's _you_ who fails to understand Ono; you're
> > falling
> > for the lies (e.g., that every single damned thing she does is
> > somehow
> > sanctioned by John;
>
> I doubt even she would say that everything she does is sanctioned by
> John.
I don't know. In her recent Larry King interview, she suggested
that the reason S. Havadtoy -- her constant companion, and, according to
persistent rumor, her husband -- came to the Dakota was to _be with
John_!!!
> > that every single damned thing she does is art;
> > etc.).
>
> I won't speak regarding her art. This has nothing to do with her art.
> This is about John's art and Sean's art. The little kids wearing those
> pajamas have probably never even heard of John Lennon. You think John
> would object to his art reaching a new generation of audience? Few
kids
> today will sit and get excited over the Beatles music, or even John's
> music.
I think that this is terribly unfortunate.
> But if they like the artwork on their pajamas, so what? So his
> legacy is passed in a new way.
Right, but is this "new way" something John would have approved of?
We don't know for sure. My view is that: (1) Ono's doing this for the
money; and (2) if John wanted to "share" his art in this way, he'd have
done so -- or at least indicated that he would like to do so -- when he
was alive.
>
> > You say that I cannot prove that John wouldn't approve of
> > Ono's
> > commercialization of his legacy. This is correct -- however, you
> > cannot
> > prove that John would have "loved" such commercialzation. Proof,
> > in
> > such cases, is impossible; the best we can do is offer arguments
> > as to
> > what is probable or likely.
> > I say that John wasn't a commercial hack, and that, if he
> > wanted
> > his drawings to Sean to be commercialized, he'd have done it
> > himself. I
>
> True, we can't say for sure what John would have wanted. But think
> about this: we have our opinions based on what we saw of John, what we
> read about him and the image his legend has left in our minds. Yoko,
> rumor has it, actually LIVED with the man! They spent actual YEARS
> living together, sharing hopes dreams, thoughts, and getting to know
> each other as only a couple in love could.
Right, but this doesn't mean that _anything_ she does with the
man's legacy is morally justified. Moreover, their relationship, from
'75 on, was, by any reasonable standard, inauthentic. I mean, she was
sending him off on all those silly excursions so that she'd be free to
cavort with her coterie of gay art dealers -- which isn't indicative of
a healthy marriage, in my view.
Ono's status as a former Lennon wife does not excuse every damned
act she undertakes.
sartanglor
Nyarlathotep wrote:
> In article <388482BB...@best1.net>,
> fab...@best1.net wrote:
>
> > "He had this way of making Sean laugh by saying, 'This is a kitty
> > cat,' " Ono said. "It makes me
> >
> > remember the fun we had, but it was a bittersweet time."
>
> Hmm, was this a slip on Ono's part (i.e., insofar as she admits that
> this period, during which they were raising Sean, was less than
> idyllic)?
>
> > Sean, now 24, is following in his father's footsteps as a musician
> > and an artist. "He's been trying
> >
> > to find his own way of expressing himself," Ono said. "It's not easy
> > when John is so famous and
> >
> > his mother did a few things too."
>
> She sure did "do a few things" -- awful things.
>
> > Asked if she thought John would have objected to having the intimate
> > drawings exhibited in a
> >
> > shopping mall, or to having Lennon's designs on footsie PJs, Yoko
> > replied, "He would have loved
> >
> > it."
>
> If he "would have loved" it so much, why didn't he _do_ it?
>
Nyarlathotep
ang...@ivnet.com wrote:
> Strabbo wrote:
>
> > > that every single damned thing she does is art;
> > > etc.).
> >
> > I won't speak regarding her art. This has nothing to do with her
art.
> > This is about John's art and Sean's art. The little kids wearing
those
> > pajamas have probably never even heard of John Lennon. You think
John
> > would object to his art reaching a new generation of audience? Few
kids
> > today will sit and get excited over the Beatles music, or even
John's
his
> > legacy is passed in a new way.
>
love the
> Beatles. Why not let them learn about John Lennon that way, *through
the music*?
> What, exactly, would be the benefit of kids learning John's "legacy"
through
> doodles that were put on kiddie pajamas? Most everyone agrees that
John was a
> genius in music, not artwork, pleasant though some of it may be. Do
you remember
> the patterns on the pajamas from when you were a toddler? Are a lot of
kids
> passing on the "legacy" of Elmo, or learning to love the music
stylings of Big
> Bird? What would be the advantages of kids growing up knowing John
Lennon as a
> "pajama designer"?
>
genius at
> it. And I'm talking about his *finished* sketches. Some of what Yoko
is putting
> out was no doubt thought of by John as insignificant doodles, done as
practice,
> to entertain Sean, to pass the time, etc. I doubt he was imagining
them as part
> of a future book deal or to adorn clothes. If he was, I bet he
would've worked
> much harder at them.
>
You make a lot of good points here, Jamie.
Every now and then, some flake/Yoko-apologist in this NG suggests
that, if it weren't for Yoko's commercialization of Lennon's legacy,
Lennon would be forgotten about.
This tells you how desperate the Yoko-apologists are to
rationalize away her misdeeds.
Nyarlathotep
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
> Before he died, Kafka requested that all his unpublished works be
destroyed.
> If that request had been carried out, we wouldn't have his best known
story.
>
Tom, what the hell are you on? This is the worst attempt at an
anology I've ever come across. Are you going to maintain that, after
Lennon died, Yoko made public his "best known work"? Be serious. She's
commercializing any damned SCRAP of Lennon that she can come up with.
R Lapworth
from "Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> contains these words:
> Hey, I talked to her for a whole 7 seconds. That makes me an insider.
You counted?
Ron
Strabbo
> children
> love the
> > Beatles. Why not let them learn about John Lennon that way,
> *through
> the music*?
I never said kids don't like Beatles music. I myself have a 2 year old
that knows Yellow Submarine by heart, among others, and a 6 year old
that begs me to sing Rocky Racoon to him every night. It's just that
the Beatles are not dominating the culture like they did thirty-five
years ago, and a lot of parents don't go out of their way to show their
kids this music. Most of my son's friends, if they even pay attention
to music at all, it's what's on top-40 radio or Muchmusic (that would
be Canadian-ized MTV).
> > What, exactly, would be the benefit of kids learning John's
> "legacy"
> through
> > doodles that were put on kiddie pajamas?
Why not? I haven't seen them, but if they look neat, what's the harm?
Most everyone agrees
> that
> John was a
> > genius in music, not artwork, pleasant though some of it may be.
> Do
> you remember
> > the patterns on the pajamas from when you were a toddler?
R2D2 and C3P-0! If I could still get them in my size... never mind.
> Every now and then, some flake/Yoko-apologist in this NG
> suggests
> that, if it weren't for Yoko's commercialization of Lennon's
> legacy,
> Lennon would be forgotten about.
> This tells you how desperate the Yoko-apologists are to
> rationalize away her misdeeds.
Wow, that's the first time I've been called a flake in this newsgroup!
I feel so...accepted! As for your comment, well, if it is directed at
me, I should point out that I never said Yoko is keeping John's legacy
alive. John's legacy will live on as long as his music exists. All I'm
asking is, who is this hurting? (Besides, obviously, you.)
And please don't refer to me as a Yoko-apologist. I'm hardly a fan of
her music or art, and I don't presume to apologize for anything she's
said or done. But John loved her and was inspired by her, and for that
reason alone I refuse to join in on the "Yoko-Is-The-Devil" parade.
Jamie
> >Some of John's artwork is fine. But it's not great, and he wasn't a genius
> at
> >it. And I'm talking about his *finished* sketches. Some of what Yoko is
> putting
> >out was no doubt thought of by John as insignificant doodles, done as
> practice,
> >to entertain Sean, to pass the time, etc. I doubt he was imagining them as
> part
> >of a future book deal or to adorn clothes. If he was, I bet he would've
> worked
> >much harder at them.
>
> I take it your music collection doesn't include either anthology or any
> bootlegs?
I have the Anthology (both Beatles and Lennon) but no bootlegs. (Oh, wait, I do
own one bootleg, but it's by Paul). However, as I said above, I have no problem
with kids learning about John through the music. Last I checked, the Anthologies
were music. We were discussing artwork on things like baby pajamas. I don't see
a lot of people complaining about the release of John's music (rereleases are a
different story, however). John was a *musician*. That's what he did. However,
he wasn't an artist, so what's the point in releasing doodles he did? As I said
above, some of it is perfectly pleasant, but there is no legacy in his visual
artwork. It's one thing to hear the genesis of a favorite song by your artist;
hearing different versions of "Imagine" can contribute to the understanding of
John's work and writing process. No one, except die-hard fans, are interested in
most of John's artwork. So how was Yoko going to market the artwork to get the
best financial rewards? Put it on tee shirts, baby pajamas, mugs, etc. No matter
which way you cut it, baby pajamas are never a significant medium to show a
serious artist's work. And Yoko has claimed that John wanted to be taken
seriously as a visual artist.
~Jamie
Tom
>I have the Anthology (both Beatles and Lennon) but no bootlegs. (Oh, wait,
I do
>own one bootleg, but it's by Paul). However, as I said above, I have no
problem
>with kids learning about John through the music. Last I checked, the
Anthologies
>were music.
They weren't "finished product" though. Some of it could even be considered
"insignificant doodles."
>We were discussing artwork on things like baby pajamas. I don't see
>a lot of people complaining about the release of John's music (rereleases
are a
>different story, however).
I've seen a few.
John was a *musician*. That's what he did. However,
>he wasn't an artist, so what's the point in releasing doodles he did?
He went to school to be an artist, his artwork was published and exhibited
during his lifetime. He was primarily a musician, but he could be called an
artist too.
What's the point? Some people want to see them. Otherwise, no one would
release them.
As I said
>above, some of it is perfectly pleasant, but there is no legacy in his
visual
>artwork. It's one thing to hear the genesis of a favorite song by your
artist;
>hearing different versions of "Imagine" can contribute to the understanding
of
>John's work and writing process. No one, except die-hard fans, are
interested in
>most of John's artwork. So how was Yoko going to market the artwork to get
the
>best financial rewards? Put it on tee shirts, baby pajamas, mugs, etc.
In other words, it's wrong to distribute John's art in a manner that people
would want to see? Why is it worse for John's artwork to be used on tee
shirts, etc, than it is to put John's face on a tee shirt, or the Beatles
name on a key chain?
>No matter
>which way you cut it, baby pajamas are never a significant medium to show a
>serious artist's work. And Yoko has claimed that John wanted to be taken
>seriously as a visual artist.
She also claimed that John was a populist and wouldn't be snobbish about it.
Nyarlathotep
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I have the Anthology (both Beatles and Lennon) but no bootlegs. (Oh,
wait,
> I do
> >own one bootleg, but it's by Paul). However, as I said above, I have
no
> problem
> >with kids learning about John through the music. Last I checked, the
> Anthologies
> >were music.
>
> They weren't "finished product" though. Some of it could even be
considered
> "insignificant doodles."
You commit the fallacy of equivocation here. The drawings of
Lennon's that Yoko is turning into merchandise are _literally_
insignificant doodles; some of the Lennon music that has been released
is merely _unfinished music_.
>
> John was a *musician*. That's what he did. However,
> >he wasn't an artist, so what's the point in releasing doodles he did?
>
> He went to school to be an artist, his artwork was published and
exhibited
> during his lifetime. He was primarily a musician, but he could be
called an
> artist too.
Indeed, especially in Yoko's parlance, according to which every
single damned thing she has ever done -- including heroin use, for
goodness' sake!!! -- is art.
At any rate, the fact that John went to art school is _totally
irrelevant_ to the issue of Yoko and her commercialization of any scrap
of Lennon-work she can dig up.
If John had wanted his work on pajamas, he'd have undertaken to get
it there. If John had wanted to be some hack salesman, he'd have been
that. But these were not the endeavors John chose.
Incidentally, a lot of Ono-apologists are fond of saying that the
issue here is "snobbery"; they insinuate that people who oppose Ono's
commercialization of Lennon are somehow snobs. This is a red-herring.
It's not on the basis of snobbery that I oppose these Ono-money making
schemes. I oppose these schemes because I am disgusted by Ono's
shameless commercialization of John's legacy. It's astonishingly
ARROGANT of Ono to think that everything she does is art; that
everything she does is sanctioned by John; and that people will actually
take seriously the stupid nonsense she emanates (often through Mintz).
If Ono had any talent at all, she'd make an honest living, without
exploiting the memory of JL.
Don Rife
"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86be7a$867$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> If John had wanted his work on pajamas, he'd have undertaken to get
> it there. If John had wanted to be some hack salesman, he'd have been
> that. But these were not the endeavors John chose.
>
> shameless commercialization of John's legacy. It's astonishingly
> ARROGANT of Ono to think that everything she does is art; that
> everything she does is sanctioned by John; and that people will actually
> take seriously the stupid nonsense she emanates (often through Mintz).
>
> If Ono had any talent at all, she'd make an honest living, without
> exploiting the memory of JL.
>
I don't understand what the big deal is with Yoko using John's doodles and
drawing on childrens clothing. Or anything else she has done with it to
date. What John would have done, had he not been murdered, is something none
of us can know. How does having some of his cute and clever doodles and
drawings on childrens clothing or in childrens books cheapen John Lennon. To
call this a "shameless commercialization of John's legacy" seems to me to be
overreacting. John Lennon's legacy is firstly his music then his writings
and lastly his drawings. Having his drawings and doodles on childrens
clothing doesn't lessen or cheapen John Lennon's legacy one bit.(imo) This
has nothing to do with being a hack salesman. Surely the only people who are
upset by this are the ones who put John Lennon, unrealistically, on a
pedestal or the ones who hate anything that Yoko does.
Nyarlathotep
"Don Rife" <rif...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Surely the only people who are
> upset by this are the ones who put John Lennon, unrealistically, on a
> pedestal or the ones who hate anything that Yoko does.
No, this doesn't follow at all. I don't put JL on a pedestal, and
I don't hate everything Yoko does. I object to this particular action
of Ono's (and I would object to the action no matter WHO was undertaking
it) because I think that she's _using the Lennon name_, in an endeavor
that _was not sanctioned by (or characteristic of) JL_, in order to
_make money_.
If Yoko is 1/10th as artistic as she purports to be, and 1/1000th
as intelligent and talented as her spokesman (Really, I'm just a
friend") Elliot Sycophant Mintz alleges her to be, why doesn't Ono
really on HER OWN work?
Don Rife
"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86be7a$867$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> If John had wanted his work on pajamas, he'd have undertaken to get
> it there. If John had wanted to be some hack salesman, he'd have been
> that. But these were not the endeavors John chose.
>
>I oppose these schemes because I am disgusted by Ono's
> shameless commercialization of John's legacy. It's astonishingly
> ARROGANT of Ono to think that everything she does is art; that
> everything she does is sanctioned by John; and that people will actually
> take seriously the stupid nonsense she emanates (often through Mintz).
>
> If Ono had any talent at all, she'd make an honest living, without
> exploiting the memory of JL.
>
>
I don't understand what the big deal is with Yoko using John's doodles and
drawing on childrens clothing. Or anything else she has done with it to
date. What John would have done, had he not been murdered, is something none
of us can know. How does having some of his cute and clever doodles and
drawings on childrens clothing or in childrens books cheapen John Lennon? To
call this a "shameless commercialization of John's legacy" seems to me to be
overreacting. John Lennon's legacy is firstly his music then his writings
and lastly his drawings. Having his drawings and doodles on childrens
clothing doesn't lessen or cheapen John Lennon's legacy one bit.(imo) This
has nothing to do with being a hack salesman. Surely the only people who are
Nyarlathotep
"Don Rife" <rif...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> I don't understand what the big deal is with Yoko using John's doodles
and
> drawing on childrens clothing. Or anything else she has done with it
to
> date. What John would have done, had he not been murdered, is
something none
> of us can know. How does having some of his cute and clever doodles
and
> drawings on childrens clothing or in childrens books cheapen John
Lennon? To
> call this a "shameless commercialization of John's legacy" seems to me
to be
> overreacting. John Lennon's legacy is firstly his music then his
writings
> and lastly his drawings. Having his drawings and doodles on childrens
> clothing doesn't lessen or cheapen John Lennon's legacy one bit.(imo)
This
> has nothing to do with being a hack salesman. Surely the only people
who are
> upset by this are the ones who put John Lennon, unrealistically, on a
> pedestal or the ones who hate anything that Yoko does.
I stand by my earlier reply to this post.
Jamie
> > > Who told you that kids don't like Beatles music? A lot of
> > children
> > love the
> > > Beatles. Why not let them learn about John Lennon that way,
> > *through
> > the music*?
>
> I never said kids don't like Beatles music. I myself have a 2 year old
> that knows Yellow Submarine by heart, among others, and a 6 year old
> that begs me to sing Rocky Racoon to him every night. It's just that
> the Beatles are not dominating the culture like they did thirty-five
> years ago, and a lot of parents don't go out of their way to show their
> kids this music. Most of my son's friends, if they even pay attention
> to music at all, it's what's on top-40 radio or Muchmusic (that would
> be Canadian-ized MTV).
Well, so...? The Beatles don't dominate the scene anymore, that's life. It would
be impossible for them to do that. But no matter what is popular *now*, the
Beatles still make up a huge part of rock history, and kids will still grow up
with the influence.
> > > What, exactly, would be the benefit of kids learning John's
> > "legacy"
> > through
> > > doodles that were put on kiddie pajamas?
>
> Why not? I haven't seen them, but if they look neat, what's the harm?
What's the benefit of it, though? The harm would be kids identifying John Lennon
not as a creator of revolutionary music, but as the designer of some doodles on
kiddie pajamas.
> > Every now and then, some flake/Yoko-apologist in this NG
> > suggests
> > that, if it weren't for Yoko's commercialization of Lennon's
> > legacy,
> > Lennon would be forgotten about.
> > This tells you how desperate the Yoko-apologists are to
> > rationalize away her misdeeds.
>
> Wow, that's the first time I've been called a flake in this newsgroup!
> I feel so...accepted! As for your comment, well, if it is directed at
> me, I should point out that I never said Yoko is keeping John's legacy
> alive. John's legacy will live on as long as his music exists. All I'm
> asking is, who is this hurting? (Besides, obviously, you.)
The above that you're quoting wasn't said by me.
~Jamie
Don Rife
> I object to this particular action
> of Ono's (and I would object to the action no matter WHO was undertaking
> it) because I think that she's _using the Lennon name_, in an endeavor
> that _was not sanctioned by (or characteristic of) JL_, in order to
> _make money_.
>
> If Yoko is 1/10th as artistic as she purports to be, and 1/1000th
> as intelligent and talented as her spokesman (Really, I'm just a
> friend") Elliot Sycophant Mintz alleges her to be, why doesn't Ono
> really on HER OWN work?
>
>
We don't know if John Lennon would have sanctioned this or not. People do
change their opinions as they grow older. That was one of the points I was
trying to make in my first post. Since John is no longer here we can't
presume he would have approved or disapproved of this. Not knowing what John
would have thought of using his drawings I look at what is being done. I see
nothing that outrageous so I figure why not. The Beatles were heavily
merchandised from the beginning. John Lennon was merchandised in the 70's.
Who can say what would be characteristic of JL if he were still with us.
Several years ago, the daughter of Moe Howard of the Three Stooges was
selling canceled checks signed by her late father. It's not like Yoko is
doing anything as crass as that. As I said in my first post, I don't think
John Lennon's legacy is being hurt my using his doodles and drawings on
childrens clothing or in childrens books. The doodles and drawings are cute
and clever.(imo) Why is making money off of this such a terrible thing?
How does this dirty or lessen the legacy of John Lennon? Why take the
merchandising so personally? I really believe this is much ado about
nothing.
Don Rife
>
> I stand by my earlier reply to this post.
>
>
Sorry about the duplicate posts. I reposted this a second time because my
original post never appeared as far as I could tell. I waited an hour before
reposting. It still hasn't shown up for me.
onono...@my-deja.com
ang...@ivnet.com wrote:
>
>
> What's the benefit of it, though? The harm would be kids identifying John Lennon
> not as a creator of revolutionary music, but as the designer of some doodles on
> kiddie pajamas.
>
Art is not about "benefits", Jamie.
What, indeed, is the benefit of owning a "doodle" by, say, Picasso, or
Michelangelo, or da Vinci? One person's doodle is another's art.
There are many many people who despise the cutesy teddy bears
and angels and flowers that have been standard images on baby
pajamas since fabrics were adorned with print.
There is no way of knowing how John would have expressed
himself had he lived. It's just as easy to argue that he would have
made more drawings and prints than record albums. That's the
thing about dead people. No one knows.
Artist. That word describes people who make music, write books,
poetry, or ballet or opera, draw lines on paper or fabric, as well
as people who sit on the stage inside a bag... it is all art if anyone
sees it that way.
Since there are thousands upon thousands of discussion groups
about Beatles, one may assume that people of all ages are fascinated
by the lives of these four people. And they want to own a piece of it
that gives them pleasure. A man who has been dead for nearly 20
years happens to have been married to an artist, an important
artist (according to the Whitney Museum in New York as well as
the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where she has a one woman
retrospective). Yoko Ono is aware of the endless demand for
John's work, so she has licensed some of his images to manufacturers
and made his happy doodles available to people who otherwise
would not be able to afford the cost of buying his art. So what?
Not to mention people who play Beatle music while they put the
great-looking pajamas on their little children...
francie
--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"They are still censoring art today,
and there are still individuals who
exercise their freedom of expression,
and pay the price."
~æ•· Tim Robbins
December 6, 1999. New York Times
JLW44
>great-looking pajamas on their little children...
>
>francie
>
Once again this is all very amusing because if Paul had done this(and he has a
valid reason now, being a grandfather) being a living artist as well, he would
have been ridiculed up and down for his commercialism amongst other things.
Yoko can milk every little last fiber out of her relationship with John and it
is considered art, but Paul can't breathe without it being critisized.
onono...@my-deja.com
What a load of crap *that* is!
You don't think Paulie hasn't milked every single droplet of sympathy out of
his wife's death?
You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his paintings?
And as for being criticized, well, that just comes with the territory,
doesn't it.
I haven't seen much criticism for RDR (he got a fine review in Rolling Stones
and elsewhere).
Qhitcherbellyachin.
ron...@my-deja.com
onono...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> You don't think Paulie hasn't milked every single droplet of sympathy
out of
> his wife's death?
>
> You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his
paintings?
>
> And as for being criticized, well, that just comes with the territory,
> doesn't it.
>
> I haven't seen much criticism for RDR (he got a fine review in
Rolling Stones
> and elsewhere).
>
> Qhitcherbellyachin.
>
> francie
> --
Once again your post begs the questions, "Do you ever actually read the
tripe you write?"
As someone else mentioned, the racism rant hasn't gotten you anywhere,
so you change your game plan.
How has Paul milked Linda's death? This should be interesting,
considering whatever you write can come write back and bite you on the
ass with all your Ono defending. What has Paul done that is any worse
than what Yoko has done in John's name?
I suppose you prefer the method you use - milking Paul's life, instead
of waiting for his death.
I thought your doctor advised you to let up on posting here. I can't
believe you're so exhausted. You write so much to this forum, it's
amazing you have time to do anything else.
d.
> You don't think Paulie hasn't milked every single droplet of sympathy out
> of his wife's death?
No, not really. Certainly there was a massive outpouring of sympathy
for him in the wake of her death, but I think someone who would deny him
sympathy for that is just as heartless as someone who would deny Yoko
the right to remember and commemorate John in any way she feels
appropriate. I think it would be quite a leap to suggest Paul was not
devastated by her death.
If he's milking sympathy these days, at least the milking is being
channeled into charitable causes rather than sheer aggrandizement: for
example, the recent donations to Sloan Kettering and that other place,
and the 2000 Linda photography calendar, the proceeds of which go to
PETA.
> You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his
> paintings?
Not blatantly so, no.
His "Beatle past" is unescapable, Francie. Absolutely so. It would be
difficult for him to do such a project without that coming up. That
goes back to a recurring question: why should he *not* be proud of that
past? It is his. Not yours, mine, or anyone else's. To say that
someone should shut off all ties with their own past, especially when
that past is so marvelous, is, well, expecting too much, IMO. It's
quite unreasonable of you. If you think Paul should quit "exploiting"
his Beatle past you should also fairly believe Yoko should quit
"exploiting" John's memory.
Me, I don't think either one of them should change what they are doing.
Neither of them have *anything* to be ashamed of in that regard, IMO.
> And as for being criticized, well, that just comes with the territory,
> doesn't it.
It certainly does.
> I haven't seen much criticism for RDR (he got a fine review in Rolling
> Stones
I wasn't aware Mick and Keef are now in the business of music criticism!
;-)
--
"Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." - Will Rogers
"I spit on the critics!" - Paul McCartney
northcut at mindspring.com
ononot...@my-deja.com
>You don't think Paulie hasn't milked every single droplet of sympathy out of
>his wife's death?
>
Well, the racism claims didn't get you very far. Why don't you "milk" this one
for a while and fill us all in?
>You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his paintings?
>
It's *his* past. Not yours. Not Yoko's. It's HIS. You of all people should
understand how using your past can gain you publicity.
>And as for being criticized, well, that just comes with the territory,
>doesn't it.
Yep. Pity he doesn't have a killfile, isn't it?
>
>I haven't seen much criticism for RDR (he got a fine review in Rolling
Stones
>and elsewhere).
>
But I'm sure you're still looking.....
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
ononot...@my-deja.com
JOC159
You fail to see any correlation between between your predictable contempt for
all McCartney's endeavors with a similar posture that some posters here assume
with regard to all the public efforts of Yoko Ono. As far as I am concerned,
your viewpoint along with that of Ono's knee-jerk critics form two sides of
the same valueless coin in the RMB/Beatle world.
> jl...@aol.com (JLW44) wrote:
>> >Not to mention people who play Beatle music while they put the
>> >great-looking pajamas on their little children...
>> >
>> >francie
>> >
>>
>> Once again this is all very amusing because if Paul had done this(and he
>has a
>> valid reason now, being a grandfather) being a living artist as well, he
>would
>> have been ridiculed up and down for his commercialism amongst other things.
>> Yoko can milk every little last fiber out of her relationship with John and
>it
>> is considered art, but Paul can't breathe without it being critisized.
>>
>
>What a load of crap *that* is!
>
>You don't think Paulie hasn't milked every single droplet of sympathy out of
>his wife's death?
>
>You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his paintings?
>
>And as for being criticized, well, that just comes with the territory,
>doesn't it.
>
>I haven't seen much criticism for RDR (he got a fine review in Rolling Stones
>and elsewhere).
>
>Qhitcherbellyachin.
>
>
>francie
Tom
> Several years ago, the daughter of Moe Howard of the Three Stooges was
>selling canceled checks signed by her late father.
I remember that. Did she need the money? I can imagine Moe Howard not having
an estate the equivalent of John Lennon's.
Tom
>Well, so...? The Beatles don't dominate the scene anymore, that's life. It
would
>be impossible for them to do that. But no matter what is popular *now*, the
>Beatles still make up a huge part of rock history, and kids will still grow
up
>with the influence.
>
How many kids in the seventies went out and bought Rudy Vallee albums. He
was huge in the twenties. Or even Bing Crosby albums?
Don Rife
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rLli4.7255$Xs.1...@news4.mia...
I'm sure Moe Howard's estate was probaly quite small in comparison to the
Lennon's.
Stephen Carter
<fab...@best1.net> wrote (citing the author but not the
source):
>Imagine All the Licensing Payments
>
>By BOOTH MOORE
>
>The artwork of former Beatle John Lennon--the anti-Establishment
[snip]
>She said she was extremely upset by the recent incident in London
>when George Harrison was
Sigh! Such dreadfully inaccurate (or ignorant?) original
writing!
Oh dear.
----
s.d.carterNOSPAM@btinternetdotcom
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
huzzlewhat
<nort...@seesig.mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <86chu1$v1v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, onono...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
>
> > You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his
> > paintings?
>
> Not blatantly so, no.
I have thought that Paul is to be congratulated for the way he went about
his art opening. Instead of choosing some huge gallery in some major
city, which he probably could have done, he chose a small gallery in a
small town in Germany -- because the gallery owner actually approached him
to view the paintings before asking to host them. Everyone else who found
out that he painted just issued an invitation based on the name. Paul has
said that he felt that Wolfgang Suttner was actually interested in the
work, rather than the name, and the need for an "audition" sealed it.
Hazel
--
"And Stella the little fairy wore a little hat, that she
could see through! And Mary the little fairy wore a
little shawl, that kept her warm."
Jamie
Hey, I have Gene Kelly's version of "Cheek to Cheek" on CD, and I love it. I
have music going back to the 1910's and '20's on CD, and my Patsy Cline album is
next to my Bruce Springsteen album, with Ella Fitzgerald next to Neil Young in
my CD collection.
~Jamie
D 28IF
>have music going back to the 1910's and '20's on CD, and my Patsy Cline album
>is
>next to my Bruce Springsteen album, with Ella Fitzgerald next to Neil Young
>in
>my CD collection.
>
>~Jamie
>
Boy, you've got a crappy way of alphabetising.
;-)
Jamie
> In article <20000122082326...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> jl...@aol.com (JLW44) wrote:
> > >Not to mention people who play Beatle music while they put the
> > >great-looking pajamas on their little children...
> > >
> > >francie
> > >
> >
> > Once again this is all very amusing because if Paul had done this(and he has a
> > valid reason now, being a grandfather) being a living artist as well, he would
> > have been ridiculed up and down for his commercialism amongst other things.
> > Yoko can milk every little last fiber out of her relationship with John and it
> > is considered art, but Paul can't breathe without it being critisized.
> >
>
> What a load of crap *that* is!
>
> You don't think Paulie hasn't milked every single droplet of sympathy out of
> his wife's death?
Ah, I see. You jump on anyone who makes a comment on Yoko's actions, twenty years
after John's death, by saying that grief doesn't ever really go away, and she should
be cut some slack because her husband died twenty years ago. Yet not even *two
years* after Linda's death, you claim Paul is "milking" public sympathy. No, scratch
that. You were claiming Paul was "milking" public sympathy way back in July of 1999,
which was just a little over a year after Linda's death, and when Paul had made
about three public appearances. So your lesson is: Yoko is allowed to grieve and
garner sympathy forever. Paul doesn't get more than a year?
> You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his paintings?
No. But I'm sure you think so, because you seem to think that Paul capitalizes on
his Beatles past while the others, including Yoko, are completely unblemished and
have never done anything related to the Beatles.
~Jamie
Tom
>
>> >Well, so...? The Beatles don't dominate the scene anymore, that's life.
It
>> would
>> >be impossible for them to do that. But no matter what is popular *now*,
the
>> >Beatles still make up a huge part of rock history, and kids will still
grow
>> up
>> >with the influence.
>> >
>> How many kids in the seventies went out and bought Rudy Vallee albums. He
>> was huge in the twenties. Or even Bing Crosby albums?
>
I
>have music going back to the 1910's and '20's on CD, and my Patsy Cline
album is
>next to my Bruce Springsteen album, with Ella Fitzgerald next to Neil Young
in
>my CD collection.
>
you didn't buy them in the seventies.
There'll always be someone buying artists from earlier eras, but everyone
fades from the charts and the mainstream. When Yoko says she wants to keep
John's memory alive, I think she has the quixotic goal of keeping him as
prominant in the public mind as he was 40 years ago. Back then, there was no
doubt that a child growing up would hear about the Beatles. Now, they might
or they might not. In 20 years, a few will but the majority'll never hear a
note of Beatles music unless they search it out.
Jamie
> In article <388964ED...@ivnet.com>,
> ang...@ivnet.com wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > What's the benefit of it, though? The harm would be kids identifying John Lennon
> > not as a creator of revolutionary music, but as the designer of some doodles on
> > kiddie pajamas.
> >
> Art is not about "benefits", Jamie.
>
> What, indeed, is the benefit of owning a "doodle" by, say, Picasso, or
> Michelangelo, or da Vinci? One person's doodle is another's art.
John Lennon was no Michaelangelo or Picasso. The difference being that Bill Gates is
the only person that can afford to buy Michaelangelo sketches, and Picassos hang in
galleries around the world, whereas Lennon's doodles are coming soon to the toddler
rack at your local K-Mart.
> There are many many people who despise the cutesy teddy bears
> and angels and flowers that have been standard images on baby
> pajamas since fabrics were adorned with print.
Ah, yes! Yoko is revolutionizing baby pajamas! Sorry, but apparently you've not
visited a shop with baby clothes lately, as there are plain colored pajamas, Sesame
Street pajamas, pajamas with every imaginable cartoon or kiddie character, including
probably every one of the 150 individual Pokemons. The fact is that most parents
aren't looking to make a fashion statement with their toddler's clothes, but rather
just looking for something cheap that can be stuck in the washer after the kid
inevitably pukes on it.
> There is no way of knowing how John would have expressed
> himself had he lived. It's just as easy to argue that he would have
> made more drawings and prints than record albums. That's the
> thing about dead people. No one knows.
So why risk it? Why not stick to dealing with only the things said artist did in their
lifetime? That way no one has to deal with sticky issues such as whether an artist
would a) want to have their work taken seriously, or b) have their artwork make money
by adorning coffee mugs.
> Artist. That word describes people who make music, write books,
> poetry, or ballet or opera, draw lines on paper or fabric, as well
> as people who sit on the stage inside a bag... it is all art if anyone
> sees it that way.
>
> Since there are thousands upon thousands of discussion groups
> about Beatles, one may assume that people of all ages are fascinated
> by the lives of these four people. And they want to own a piece of it
> that gives them pleasure. A man who has been dead for nearly 20
> years happens to have been married to an artist, an important
> artist (according to the Whitney Museum in New York as well as
> the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where she has a one woman
> retrospective). Yoko Ono is aware of the endless demand for
> John's work, so she has licensed some of his images to manufacturers
> and made his happy doodles available to people who otherwise
> would not be able to afford the cost of buying his art. So what?
Um, sorry, but I must've missed how lithographs that cost a couple of thousand dollars
are more "available" to the average person than the two books of artwork that John
released in his lifetime and that are still available for purchase. In fact, one would
spend more money trying to buy up single pieces of things like mugs, clothes, and ties
to get all of John's artwork than one would spend buying the two books.
~Jamie
Richard Joly
>Once again this is all very amusing because if Paul had done this(and he has a
>valid reason now, being a grandfather) being a living artist as well, he would
FYI : Yoko is a grandmother too.
>have been ridiculed up and down for his commercialism amongst other things.
>Yoko can milk every little last fiber out of her relationship with John and it
>is considered art, but Paul can't breathe without it being critisized.
Someone has said that the Carter line is art ? Where ?
Richard Joly
--
rj...@cam.org //
ONOWEB - GLOBAL NEWS ABOUT YOKO ONO
http://www.metatronpress.com/onoweb
Richard Joly
<nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>it) because I think that she's _using the Lennon name_, in an endeavor
>that _was not sanctioned by (or characteristic of) JL_, in order to
>_make money_.
uncharacteristic ? let's see.
a -make drawings and sell them -- BAG ONE lithographs; checked
b -make money - the gazillions of Beatles records sold around the
globe; checked
c- sell clothes - authorized Beatles nylons, wigs, tshirts etc...;
checked
d -work closely developping or approving products, with/for children,
in mind - ONE TO ONE concert, recording with Kyoko Cox & Julian
Lennon, Beatles cartoons, Yellow Submarine, etc ; checked
Nope. Very characteristic.
interstate5
Jamie stated:
>
>The difference being that Bill Gates is
>the only person that can afford to buy Michaelangelo sketches, and Picassos hang
>in
>galleries around the world, whereas Lennon's doodles are coming soon to the
>toddler
>rack at your local K-Mart.
>
Actually, some of the lesser Michaelangelo sketches can be had for under $1
million. That's not cheap, but it opens it up to a lot of people who don't have
Bill Gates' fortune (what is it, $100 billion at last count?).
But your point about Lennon's doodles is right. I was walking past a mall
gallery the other day and almost puked when I saw a window full of prints of
Lennon doodles and other trifles. I can't help but believe that if John hadn't
died so tragically, he would have died of embarassment if he saw what was going
on. Let's not forget that the butcher cover was principally his idea -- and
that was just about re-arranging final released versions of songs on albums, a
comparatively minor offense.
>> There is no way of knowing how John would have expressed
>> himself had he lived. It's just as easy to argue that he would have
>> made more drawings and prints than record albums. That's the
>> thing about dead people. No one knows.
>
>So why risk it? Why not stick to dealing with only the things said artist did in
>their
>lifetime? That way no one has to deal with sticky issues such as whether an
>artist
>would a) want to have their work taken seriously, or b) have their artwork make
>money
>by adorning coffee mugs.
>
That is the right side of the argument. John's legacy is what it was; the
public had the things he wanted the public to see or hear. Now we also have
humiliating basement tapes of his song doodles in the form of the LA, not to
mention every 2" x 3" scribble he ever made set in an enormous white matte set
in an even more enormous frame. It just screams "ripoff."
>> Since there are thousands upon thousands of discussion groups
>> about Beatles, one may assume that people of all ages are fascinated
>> by the lives of these four people. And they want to own a piece of it
>> that gives them pleasure. A man who has been dead for nearly 20
>> years happens to have been married to an artist, an important
>> artist (according to the Whitney Museum in New York as well as
>> the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where she has a one woman
>> retrospective). Yoko Ono is aware of the endless demand for
>> John's work, so she has licensed some of his images to manufacturers
>> and made his happy doodles available to people who otherwise
>> would not be able to afford the cost of buying his art. So what?
>
Yes, Yoko has had a few shows -- every dog has her day, after all. Undoubtedly,
she's more high profile than most artists, even 20 years A.J.L. In a world of
obscurity (which is what the avant garde art world is, for better or worse),
she's got big fame, and it brings paying customers in the door. That's why
she's shown. To call her an "important artist" is really stretching things.
Now, John Lennon was an important artist -- he influenced his peers, he
influenced his successors, he influenced the culture. By that yardstick, Yoko
is a cipher.
interstate5
Jamie
> >Hey, I have Gene Kelly's version of "Cheek to Cheek" on CD, and I love it. I
> >have music going back to the 1910's and '20's on CD, and my Patsy Cline album
> >is
> >next to my Bruce Springsteen album, with Ella Fitzgerald next to Neil Young
> >in
> >my CD collection.
> >
> >~Jamie
> >
>
> Boy, you've got a crappy way of alphabetising.
> ;-)
I wish they were alphabetized! Believe me, I have enough trouble remembering to
put the CDs back in their cases, much less organizing.
~Jamie
Jamie
> >
> >> >Well, so...? The Beatles don't dominate the scene anymore, that's life.
> It
> >> would
> >> >be impossible for them to do that. But no matter what is popular *now*,
> the
> >> >Beatles still make up a huge part of rock history, and kids will still
> grow
> >> up
> >> >with the influence.
> >> >
> >> How many kids in the seventies went out and bought Rudy Vallee albums. He
> >> was huge in the twenties. Or even Bing Crosby albums?
> >
> >Hey, I have Gene Kelly's version of "Cheek to Cheek" on CD, and I love it.
> I
> >have music going back to the 1910's and '20's on CD, and my Patsy Cline
> album is
> >next to my Bruce Springsteen album, with Ella Fitzgerald next to Neil Young
> in
> >my CD collection.
> >
> I'm guessing that you weren't a kid when you bought them, and I'm sure that
> you didn't buy them in the seventies.
Actually, I was 14 or 15. You're right about the 70's, though. I bought 'em
later than that, when those artists were even *less* popular.
> There'll always be someone buying artists from earlier eras, but everyone
> fades from the charts and the mainstream. When Yoko says she wants to keep
> John's memory alive, I think she has the quixotic goal of keeping him as
> prominant in the public mind as he was 40 years ago. Back then, there was no
> doubt that a child growing up would hear about the Beatles. Now, they might
> or they might not. In 20 years, a few will but the majority'll never hear a
> note of Beatles music unless they search it out.
I highly doubt that. Since I'm younger than you, I probably have a better
perspective, and believe me, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc. are being kept
alive by the music. The Beatles aren't being kept alive by virtue of John's
artwork.
~Jamie
Tom
>d -work closely developping or approving products, with/for children,
>in mind - ONE TO ONE concert, recording with Kyoko Cox
What is Kyoko on?
Tom
Jamie wrote in message <388A53F1...@ivnet.com>...
Maybe not. I might have a better perspective on immensely popular artists
fading from popularity.
>and believe me, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc. are being kept
>alive by the music.
They won't always be at the same level of popularity. Give it time. It's a
little more difficult for each generation to be exposed to music from the
past. When I was growing up, there was a 50s revival going on and it was
fairly easy to hear Chuck Berry on the oldies station. Today, the fifties
revivial has been, gone, been again , and gone again, and the oldies station
plays songs from the 70s.
To everything, turn turn turn.
The Beatles aren't being kept alive by virtue of John's
>artwork.
>
I said it was a quixotic goal.
JLW44
>>
>>
>>francie
30 years of writing 'professionally' and this is the best you can come up with?
Richard Joly
On Tony Cox's for sale list, she's listed as singing on those
unreleased demo tapes that this guy has been trying to sell.
See the recent thread __LENNON TAPE SURFACES_
Also came across a collectable website yesterday, where a drawing by
Lennon is sold, with authentification by Tony Cox [Yoko Ono's second
husband], done at that same farm in the early 70s.
According to the documentation that the dealer provides, Cox has
written that he believes Lennon was doing these drawings for a
children book he was working on with Yoko.
See:
http://www.alexautographs.com/sale.htm
Cox's letter is dated 1995, 4 years before REAL LOVE and the Carters
line appeared.
Note : I wonder if Kyoko heard at all on GPAC ? .
Richard
Barb Alan Atkinson
D 28IF wrote:
> >Hey, I have Gene Kelly's version of "Cheek to Cheek" on CD, and I love it. I
> >have music going back to the 1910's and '20's on CD, and my Patsy Cline album
> >is
> >next to my Bruce Springsteen album, with Ella Fitzgerald next to Neil Young
> >in
> >my CD collection.
> >
> >~Jamie
> >
>
> Boy, you've got a crappy way of alphabetising.
> ;-)
That's exactly what I was thinking, LOL!
Barb
Stephen Carter
Joly) wrote:
[snip]
>
>Cox's letter is dated 1995, 4 years before REAL LOVE and the Carters
>line appeared.
Eh! Not me guv! Not Guilty! :-)
Teresa Williams
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 onono...@my-deja.com wrote:
<<SNIP>>
> > Yoko can milk every little last fiber out of her relationship with
> > John and it is considered art, but Paul can't breathe without it
> > being critisized.
> >
>
> What a load of crap *that* is!
>
> You don't think Paulie hasn't milked every single droplet of sympathy out of
> his wife's death?
>
Sorry Francie,
Most of my sympathies had been with you in many of the skirmishes here but
I find this outburst unfounded.
While it is true that more details of Paul's reactions to Linda's
death have become public than I'd have expected, I don't find it hard
to imagine that she may well have encouraged him to carry on with
their animal rights/veggie causes in her name. Hard to see any
profit for him in that. If he was working with her on her album,
why should he not finish and release it? We can't imagine the proceeds
from it have made a big difference in his financial picture,
can we? Nor in the esteem shown to him by music fans.
As for his very early statement about his last words to her about
riding through the bluebells, I was very touched by that. Not the
least because I'd just mailed a (hand-painted) sympathy note to him
with bluebells on it when I heard the statement. I still wonder if
bluebells are the same sort of thing in England as they are in my
midwest homeland. It is also true that he's been more open than
I'd have expected about his own grieving process, but it is one
of the first things interviewers ask about. How does this benefit
him or cost us? I may have sent a card he never saw but have to wonder
why he'd have any measure of or reaction to sympathy from his fans/public.
Why do you think he cares?
I've always felt that I share enough of Paul's faults to sometimes
have a clue as to his motives. Yes, of course, I have no way of
validating that but it probably doesn't hurt anyone. In this case
I sympathize with what I see as his wish not to be criticized as
viciously for his reaction to the death of a dear one as he was in
the past. I'm one of those people who often suffers from not knowing
what to say and being critcized for not saying anything. It looks to me
like he's really tried to consider and share some of his feelings.
Or maybe just to sort out some that he does feel willing to share.
Either way I don't fault him.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 onono...@my-deja.com wrote:
> You don't think he used his Beatle past to gain publicity for his paintings?
>
> And as for being criticized, well, that just comes with the territory,
> doesn't it.
>
> I haven't seen much criticism for RDR (he got a fine review in Rolling Stones
> and elsewhere).
>
> Qhitcherbellyachin.
>
>
> francie
> http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
As for his paintings, he's apparently been at it for years and only
reluctantly agreed to show. As far as I know, there has been no
US showing and I've never heard of any of them selling or being
for sale. If you know otherwise, tell us all. It is
true that the German gallery sells a catalog. (I bought it and
I love it, even though I am fixated on and aspire to create
Impressionist art.) They also sell posters of several of the featured
works. But at 12DM each there's little profit there!
Do we have evidence that *he* "used" or even mentioned his
"Beatle past" in the publicity for the showing or gallery?
I'd bet that most (especially young) reporters auto-matically
say "...former Beatle Paul..." by way of introduction
to the majority of their readers who may not recognize the name,
unadorned. Again, what's the objectionable ulterior motive here?
Looks to me that the gallery makes out big time. Not perhaps "a
registered charity", but not likely lining Paul's pockets either.
While criticism may be an unavoidable side effect of being rich
and famous, unfair criticism reflects mostly on the critic.
Here too, we must consider the source.
Teresa